WILLIAM ADDENBROOK Y BARKER, PETITIONER, VS. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, RESPONDENT.

Petition for certiorari to review the decision
of the Court of Appeals affirming a conviction by the Court of First Instance
of Manila for homicide through reckless imprudence upon the peti­tioner William
Addenbrook y Barker.

The appellate court’s decision depict
the facts as follows:

“x x
x about 3:15 in the afternoon of 9 Jan­uary
1960, the front bumper of the Stanvac Service Truck with Plate No. 2740, Manila,
1960, while travelling southward along Marquez de Comillas, being driven then by accused William Addenbrook, and in front of House No. 1010, came into
contact with the body of a pedestrian Wenceslao Risaldo, with the result that the latter fell and was taken
to the Philippine General Hospital by accused and his helper in the truck named
Amando Valeriano, but was
dead on arrival, it having been found that he had re­ceived abrasions on the
left forehead, and contusions with lacerations on the face, left arm, right
thigh, knee joints, and right buttocks and waist and frac­ture of the skull, Exh. B, so that the Fiscal filed the present criminal case
for homicide thru reckless imprudence against accused resulting in his
conviction, x x x.”

Upon impact of the van against the victim, the latter fell and
rolled to a distance of fifteen (15) paces, as shown by two (2) sets of
bloodstains observed by patrolman Emilio Guzman in his ocular investigation
immediately after the occurrence of the incident.  From these facts, the appellate court found
it difficult to believe that the van was traveling at a slow and reasonable
speed.  Considering further that as
postulated by the accused himself, his view of the street was partly blocked by
a parked car in front of house No. 1010, Marquez de Comillas,
from behind which the deceased tried to cross the street; and with the added
fact that the appellant did not blow his horn despite the visual obstruction by
the parked car, the Court of Appeals concluded that he failed to observe that
reasonable care required of a driver of a motor vehicle.

Appellant insists that such conclusion is error, and assails the
credibility and competency of witness Guzman.

Credibility of witnesses is a question of fact (Rumbaoa vs. Arzaga, 84 Phil. 812;
Lim vs. Calaguas,
83 Phil. 796) and, there­fore, not reviewable by the
Supreme Court.  (Abeto
vs. People, 90 Phil. 581).  The objection
to patrolman Guzman’s competency be­cause he was not presented as an expert
witness, nor did he see the
incident actually happen, is untenable. 
What Guzman testified to are what he saw in his
ocular investigation, such as
the two (2) sets of bloodstains and the 15 paces distance between them, that were facts derived from his own
perception.

The Court of Appeals gave no credence to the claim that the
deceased suddenly darted from behind the parked car.  Neither did the trial court do so,
considering the lack of corroboration of peti­tioner’s version, and the
circumstance that the victim, being
a grown-up man, and not a child, would not have ignored the noise of the
oncoming vehicle, there being no reason shown for his disregarding the obvious
danger.

At any rate, that the accident could not be avoided because the
victim was so close to the truck when he, as alleged by appel­lant, suddenly
darted across the street, does not exculpate the accused, since the latter was
driving at excessive speed.

“The fact that a pedestrian came into the path of the car
suddenly and so close that the driver could not stop and avoid striking him
will not excuse the driver, where the car was being driven at an unreasonable
rate of speed under the circumstances.” (5 Am. Jur. p. 612, sec. 195).

While the general rule is that a driver is not held accountable
just because he failed to take the wisest choice in a sudden emer­gency, the
rule does not apply where the emergency is of the driver’s own creation or
devising.

The other assigned errors raise questions of fact and credibil­ity
which this Court is not at liberty to revise.

We, therefore, find no error in the appealed decision, and the
same is hereby affirmed.  Costs against appellant, William Adden­brook
y Barker.

SO ORDERED.

Concepcion, C.J., Dizon,
Makalintal, Bengzon, J.P., Zaldivar, Sanchez, and
Ruiz Castro, JJ., concur.